Popular Messianic(?) and Bandit Movements Up To The Time Of Jesus and Beyond – Part 2

by Neil Godfrey

This continues from Part 1 where I began discussing what Richard Horsley has to say about popular messianic movements in Israel up to the time of Jesus in Bandits, Prophets & Messiahs. Previous posts addressed the concept of a future messiah among the literate elites. This post considers what Horsley has to say about the way messianic movements among the general populace grew out of the ancient popularity of the institution of kingship. I have only two reservations about Horsley’s argument:

(1) ancient Israelite kingship, especially the stories of popular elections of kings, was mostly biblical myth without historical basis;

(2) Horsley can do no more than assume that there was widespread messianic hope among the masses – he offers “little or no evidence” for this. The primary evidence he does offer is the sudden outburst of rebellions at the death of Herod and again prior to the war with Rome. He believes that such rebellions are evidence that messianic hopes had lain “dormant” in the minds of the people for many generations up to those times.

So the evidence is very thin. In my last post on this topic I referred to William Scott Green’s claim that evidence for messianic hopes up till the Jewish rebellion of 66-70 is not unlike a proof-texting exercise. It has long been assumed there must have been such a hope in order to make sense of “a historical Jesus.”

The Tradition of Popular Kingship?

Horsley begins by arguing that the “particular tradition of popular kingship” existed on the basis of “assuming that the ordinary people, even if illiterate, had some substantial acquaintance with biblical stories and images.” It is on the basis of this assumption that we can say “it is evident that they had memories of popularly recognized kings and their followers.” And since these “memories” were “embodied in the people’s sacred traditions (the law and the prophets),” we can say that these memories were themselves the tradition of popular kingship.

I have difficulties with this. But first I’ll put it all in Horsley’s words in case my paraphrase has missed something:

Assuming that the ordinary people, even if illiterate, had some substantial acquaintance with biblical stories and images, it is evident that they had memories of popularly recognized kings and their followers which, precisely because they had become embodied in the people’s sacred traditions (the law and the prophets), constituted the particular tradition of popular kingship. (p. 92)

Has not archaeology unearthed evidence that the religion of the ordinary populace of Israel during the monarchic period embraced its asherah and other idols? I have also been persuaded by “the Copenhagen school” or “minimalists” that there was no period of judges, no united kingdom of David and Solomon, and that the biblical stories of these mythical ages were products of the Persian and Hellenistic periods.

But even if the Biblical history had been historical, are political and social ideologies realistically carried across centuries of generations in “memories”? And on top of all this, modern studies of social bandits have found that, despite the myths they may generate, they rarely rise above immediate interests and reciprocal relationships to higher levels of political consciousness.

And does the Biblical story really identify any contemporary kings as messiahs? The common assumption that ancient Jews hailed their kings as “anointed ones” or “messiahs” has been challenged in the opening chapter by Green in Neusner’s Judaisms and Their Messiahs At the Turn Of the Christian Era and others since (e.g. Thomas L. Thompson). These have argued that the term “messiah” is only used of past or future ideal kings (or priests) and never of contemporaries.

Clearly Horsley’s argument for a “particular tradition of popular kingship” rests primarily on inductions from certain interpretations about the Biblical literature. This does not strike me as a substantial foundation for an argument for messianic “memories” in the generations preceding Jesus. (Let’s not forget that there was also a considerable nonbiblical literature expressing religious ideas largely alien to the Bible.) If there were any “social memories” among the peasantry around the time of Herod the Great and soon afterwards,

Horsley explains the window through which he is going to interpret social movements he finds in the record:

The issue and our approach to it can be illustrated by examination of the source of the new social form, namely, the traditions contained in the biblical history. (p. 92)

I understand Horsley is here saying that he will interpret references to social and rebel movements through the models he finds in the Bible stories.

How valid is this interpretive model — especially given the reservations I have expressed above?

So I list below the bandit gangs that Horsley uses as supporting evidence. (I am not at all disputing these. What Josephus is alluding to is a phenomenon that was common throughout much of the Roman empire — at least where the populations were over-taxed on top of other calamities such as famines and war.)

Social Banditry in Palestine

The first evidence appears in the wake of the Hasmonean “civil war” in which Aristobulus was said to have attracted considerable peasant support. See Josephus, chapter 8 of his Wars I. This brings us up to the 50′s b.c.e. It was in the post-war conditions that we read of our earliest “bandit raiders”. Horsley sees these names indicative of “social banditry” and he is probably right. He relies heavily on the work of the pioneer in the study of social banditry, Eric Hobsbawm. To simplify, a social bandit is a “Robin Hood” type of figure who has some significant measure of “social support” for his response to widely experienced wrongs by powers-tha-be. (They maintain support by refraining from robbing their neighbouring poor — who have nothing worth stealing anyway — and on occasion have been known to earn allegiance through the time honoured method of bestowing gifts.)

Now Herod was an active man, and soon found proper materials for his active spirit to work upon. As therefore he found that Hezekias, the head of the robbers, ran over the neighboring parts of Syria with a great band of men, he caught him and slew him, and many more of the robbers with him; which exploit was chiefly grateful to the Syrians, insomuch that hymns were sung in Herod’s commendation, both in the villages and in the cities, as having procured their quietness, and having preserved what they possessed to them . . .

Horsley comments:

It is no surprise that we find banditry thriving in the aftermath of this period of civil war and political-economic strife. . . . The Galileans who joined the brigand band led by Hezekiah were probably victims of, and fugitives from, the shifting political and economic situation as well as the newly acquired power of the local nobility. . . . This “very large gang” of brigands was raiding primarily along the Syrian border area . . . . (pp. 63-4)

A decade later we have what looks like a re-run.

Galilean cave bandits

Another outbreak of dynastic warfare saw peasants supporting the Hasmonean Antigonus. Horsley shows from the evidence in Josephus (chapter 16 of book 1 in Wars) that the Galilean brigands that appeared at this time were a major factor along with Antigonus opposing his rule. Antigonus was installed in power by the Parthians and Herod marched out to take on both him and the Galilean bandits opposing him shortly after 40 b.c.e.

Josephus gives us some idea of their strength:

[Herod] marched to take the remaining parts of Galilee, and to drive away the garrisons placed there by Antigonus.

2. But when Herod had reached Sepphoris, in a very great snow, he took the city without any difficulty . . . . After which he hasted away to the robbers that were in the caves, who overran a great part of the country, and did as great mischief to its inhabitants as a war itself could have done. Accordingly, he sent beforehand three cohorts of footmen, and one troop of horsemen, to the village Arbela, and came himself forty days afterwards with the rest of his forces. Yet were not the enemy aftrighted at his assault but met him in arms; for their skill was that of warriors, but their boldness was the boldness of robbers: when therefore it came to a pitched battle, they put to flight Herod’s left wing with their right one; but Herod, wheeling about on the sudden from his own right wing, came to their assistance . . . and so turned back and ran away.

3. But Herod followed them, and slew them as he followed them, and destroyed a great part of them, till those that remained were scattered beyond the river [Jordan;] and Galilee was freed from the terrors they had been under, excepting from those that remained, and lay concealed in caves, which required longer time ere they could be conquered. . . .

The next notices of popular resistance appear at the time of the death of Herod the Great in 4 b.c.e. The Galilean city of Sepphoris rebelled and was razed to the ground by the Rome’s governor of Syria, Varus. It was rebuilt by Herod Antipas who was made governor (tetrarch) by Rome.

After the suppression of the Galilean cave bandits we have no further indication of similar outbreaks:

We possess little or no evidence of banditry for the long reign of Herod. But this does not mean there was none at all. The presence of some brigands in the popular messianic movement in Perea following the death of Herod suggests that there may occasionally have been some bandits in the outlying areas. (pp. 63-64)

So what are these “popular messianic movements”? Horsely cites Judas the son of Hezekiah (the bandit leader described above), Simon and Athronges.

3 Kings: Judas, Simon & Athronges

Josephus describes three outbreaks in particular that followed hard on the death of Herod the Great in 4 b.c.e. Horsley believes these were messianic claimants because they each claimed to be a king and the general peasantry hoped to be ruled once again by a Jewish king whom they considered a “messiah”.

5. There was also Judas, the son of that Ezekias who had been head of the robbers; which Ezekias was a very strong man, and had with great dificulty been caught by Herod. This Judas, having gotten together a multitude of men of a profligate character about Sepphoris in Galilee, made an assault upon the palace [there,] and seized upon all the weapons that were laid up in it, and with them armed every one of those that were with him, and carried away what money was left there; and he became terrible to all men, by tearing and rending those that came near him; and all this in order to raise himself, and out of an ambitious desire of the royal dignity; and he hoped to obtain that as the reward not of his virtuous skill in war, but of his extravagance in doing injuries.

Here Horsley sees evidence that Judas led a popular messianic movement. This is the subtext, he believes, of the claim to be a king. However, Horsley has already explained that he believes it is correct to interpret the evidence according to a number of assumptions we hold about the biblical narratives.

I suggest we need first to find evidence linking the royal claimant to biblical ideology.

And then of Simon and the Perean rebellion immediately after:

6. There was also Simon, who had been a slave of Herod the king, but in other respects a comely person, of a tall and robust body; he was one that was much superior to others of his order, and had had great things committed to his care. This man was elevated at the disorderly state of things, and was so bold as to put a diadem on his head, while a certain number of the people stood by him, and by them he was declared to be a king, and thought himself more worthy of that dignity than any one else. He burnt down the royal palace at Jericho, and plundered what was left in it. He also set fire to many other of the king’s houses in several places of the country, and utterly destroyed them, and permitted those that were with him to take what was left in them for a prey; and he would have done greater things, unless care had been taken to repress him immediately; for Gratus, when he had joined himself to some Roman soldiers, took the forces he had with him, and met Simon, and after a great and a long fight, no small part of those that came from Perea, who were a disordered body of men, and fought rather in a bold than in a skillful manner, were destroyed; and although Simon had saved himself by flying away through a certain valley, yet Gratus overtook him, and cut off his head. The royal palace also at Amathus, by the river Jordan, was burnt down by a party of men that were got together, as were those belonging to Simon. And thus did a great and wild fury spread itself over the nation, because they had no king to keep the multitude in good order, and because those foreigners who came to reduce the seditious to sobriety did, on the contrary, set them more in a flame, because of the injuries they offered them, and the avaricious management of their affairs.

Again, is there really evidence here of a messianic ideology? A desire to replace Herod as king, certainly. And the rebellion was clearly inflamed even after the defeat and beheading. If Simon had been a messianic hopeful then would not his beheading have more likely have led to a demoralization and submission? Does not the violent reactions of his followers in the wake of the brutality following their defeat suggest it was anger rather than ideology that led the rebellion?

Athronges the shepherd king

7. But because Athronges, a person neither eminent by the dignity of his progenitors, nor for any great wealth he was possessed of, but one that had in all respects been a shepherd only, and was not known by any body; yet because he was a tall man, and excelled others in the strength of his hands, he was so bold as to set up for king. This man thought it so sweet a thing to do more than ordinary injuries to others, that although he should be killed, he did not much care if he lost his life in so great a design.

He had also four brethren, who were tall men themselves, and were believed to be superior to others in the strength of their hands, and thereby were encouraged to aim at great things, and thought that strength of theirs would support them in retaining the kingdom. Each of these ruled over a band of men of their own; for those that got together to them were very numerous. They were every one of them also commanders; but when they came to fight, they were subordinate to him, and fought for him, while he put a diadem about his head, and assembled a council to debate about what things should be done, and all things were done according to his pleasure.

And this man retained his power a great while; he was also called king, and had nothing to hinder him from doing what he pleased. He also, as well as his brethren, slew a great many both of the Romans and of the king’s forces, and managed matters with the like hatred to each of them. The king’s forces they fell upon, because of the licentious conduct they had been allowed under Herod’s government; and they fell upon the Romans, because of the injuries they had so lately received from them. But in process of time they grew more cruel to all sorts of men, nor could any one escape from one or other of these seditions, since they slew some out of the hopes of gain, and others from a mere custom of slaying men.

They once attacked a company of Romans at Emmaus, who were bringing corn and weapons to the army, and fell upon Arius, the centurion, who commanded the company, and shot forty of the best of his foot soldiers; but the rest of them were aftrighted at their slaughter, and left their dead behind them, but saved themselves by the means of Gratus, who came with the king’s troops that were about him to their assistance.

Now these four brethren continued the war a long while by such sort of expeditions, and much grieved the Romans; but did their own nation also a great deal of mischief. Yet were they afterwards subdued; one of them in a fight with Gratus, another with Ptolemy; Archelaus also took the eldest of them prisoner; while the last of them was so dejected at the other’s misfortune, and saw so plainly that he had no way now left to save himself, his army being worn away with sickness and continual labors, that he also delivered himself up to Archclaus, upon his promise and oath to God [to preserve his life.] But these things came to pass a good while afterward.

Again, is there any indication of royal/messianic ideology in here? There appears to be no interest in taking Jerusalem, but only in subduing authorities in his own geographical “territory”. Horsley sees significance in Athronges starting out as a shepherd like David. But Josephus is relating this to show what an up-start he really was. He was a shepherd “only” and “not otherwise known by anybody”.

And the rest:

8. And now Judea was full of robberies; and as the several companies of the seditious lighted upon any one to head them, he was created a king immediately, in order to do mischief to the public. They were in some small measure indeed, and in small matters, hurtful to the Romans; but the murders they committed upon their own people lasted a long while.

This sounds to me like evidence against Horsley’s interpretation. The three names accounted for are three names representative of a larger and very immediate social problem.

The Gap Years

The above all pertains to the immediate aftermath of the death of Herod the Great in 4 b.c.e.

For the next forty years we have no information about any further disturbances.

Our principle source, Josephus, provides little information about the period from the Roman deposition of Herod’s son and successor in Judea, Archelaus, to the end of the reign of Agrippa I (6-44 C.E.). Perhaps his own lack of sources for the period partly explains why he does not report any significant bandit activity until nearly mid-first century. Consequently, it is also difficult to determine just how typical may have been the brigand troop led by Tholomaus toward the end of this period, or what circumstances may have surrounded such bandit activity. (p. 66)

But Horsley does inform us of a number of clearly relevant circumstances: double taxation, dispossession and provocations by the Romans against religious customs. It is also worth noting the evidence for the different regions of Galilee and Judea. Can events in Judea be assumed to be a window to what was happening in Galilee under different governance?

But Horsley argues that two names are evidence of some activity for messianism or banditry during, in effect, the “Jesus decade”. (My term for the 30′s, not Horsley’s.) Tholomaus and Eleazar ben Dinai.

Tholomy also, the arch robber, was, after some time, brought to him bound, and slain, but not till he had done a world of mischief to Idumea and the Arabians. And indeed, from that time, Judea was cleared of robberies by the care and providence of Fadus.

The term “arch robber” or “brigand chief” is the same descriptor Josephus uses of Hezekiah before him and Eleazar (contemporary/after him) — both of whom led very powerful forces.

1. NOW there arose a quarrel between the Samaritans and the Jews on the occasion following: It was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city at the festivals, to take their journeys through the country of the Samaritans; and at this time there lay, in the road they took . . . . fought with the Galileans, and killed a great many of them. But when the principal of the Galileans were informed of what had been done, they . . . . took their weapons, and entreated the assistance of Eleazar, the son of Dineus, a robber, who had many years made his abode in the mountains, with which assistance they plundered many villages of the Samaritans. . . . . whereupon those that were the most eminent persons at Jerusalem, and that both in regard to the respect that was paid them, and the families they were of, as soon as they saw to what a height things were gone, put on sackcloth, and heaped ashes upon their heads, and by all possible means besought the seditious, and persuaded them that they would set before their eyes the utter subversion of their country, the conflagration of their temple, and the slavery of themselves, their wives, and children, which would be the consequences of what they were doing; and would alter their minds, would cast away their weapons, and for the future be quiet, and return to their own homes. These persuasions of theirs prevailed upon them. So the people dispersed themselves, and the robbers went away again to their places of strength; and after this time all Judea was overrun with robberies.

And finally Eleazar meets his end (Antiquities Book 20, chapter 8:

5. Now as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude. Yet did Felix catch and put to death many of those impostors every day, together with the robbers. He also caught Eleazar, the son of Dineas, who had gotten together a company of robbers; and this he did by treachery; for he gave him assurance that he should suffer no harm, and thereby persuaded him to come to him; but when he came, he bound him, and sent him to Rome.

Horsley says that Eleazar began his career 20 years earlier, hence in the latter 30′s. This is indicated in the Jewish War, Book 2, chapter 13

This Felix took Eleazar the arch-robber, and many that were with him, alive, when they had ravaged the country for twenty years together, and sent them to Rome; but as to the number of the robbers whom he caused to be crucified, and of those who were caught among them, and whom he brought to punishment, they were a multitude not to be enumerated.

Felix was procurator from 52 to 58 c.e. (The passage in Antiquities 20:6 does open with a refrain that evokes a parable in the Gospel of Luke.) It does appear that a time traveler returning to any decade in the centuries either side of the b.c.e/c.e. divide could expect to encounter bandits of some sort in the regions — as probably one finds in many other places throughout the empire.

Mid First Century C.E.

There is little reason to think of the brigand gangs as messianic hopefuls. What they do indicate is the social unrest at the time, so that when leaders do appear claiming to be “king” Horsley believes we have good reason to expect them to be symptomatic of a peasant attachment to memories of royal ideology harking back to the days of David and sustained through acquaintance with the Bible stories.

I suspect this is an ideologically generated interpretation of a phenomenon that was common enough throughout the empire. The evidence we have for an interest in a Davidic messiah of future hopes is elitist, remote and theological. It seems to me that such ideas, being far removed from realities of day to day that peasants facing desperate survival conditions endured, would have little appeal beyond those elites. I could be wrong, but Horsley does not give any evidence apart from the simple fact that there were three claimants to royalty when the first king Herod died. He says that Josephus was reluctant to spell out the full ideological implications of these claims. But may be so, but is there not more than one way to interpret this silence?

But from the first century C.E. onwards the bandit activity increased sharply. This becomes a problem that seems to have itself partly fueled the eventual outbreak of the war in 66 c.e. So what was going on from this period onwards that led to such an increase in this activity, more claimants to be king, and eventually to full-blown mass hopes for a Davidic Messiah to rescue them all?

Horsley points the finger at a “natural” calamity:

Banditry increased sharply around mid-first century. This is almost certainly due to the severe famine that occurred under the procurator Tiberius Alexander (46-48 c.e.). Famine, as has been noted, is one of the special economic circumstances almost certain to result in an upsurge of bandit activity — especially in the case of the Jewish peasantry already bearing the burden of double taxation, alien rule, and occasional provocations. (p. 67)

I look at the question of “messianism” in Josephus as Josephus putting things, things that are reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls and apocalyptic literature, in a certain way. It’s understandbable that he would not use the exact same terminologies of “the messianic movement” or would have a generally negative opinion of “it,” given his audience and position as a captive of the Flavians. But I think the examples you cite above are obvious enough indications that there were in a broad sense “messianic” claimants throughout the first century to varying extents, not only 66-70 CE and after.

“King,” “of the royal dignity”; I think these are just Josephus’ terms, like “governor of the habitable earth” in War 6.312, that he uses to describe the post-Hasmonean climate of “messianism” that opposed Roman occupation and the Herodians.

It is, as you know, this view of Josephus’s references to rebel kings that I question. I think it is a little tell-tale sign that Josephus is being interpreted with a Christian bias when scholars will say on the one hand that Josephus does not wish to use the term “messianic” for fear of offending Roman and imperial sensibilities, while on the other hand many are quite adamant that he did, in a hostile Testimonium Flavianum, acknowledge that Jesus’ disciples thought he was the Messiah.

But the bottom line in my view is that there is no evidence of Jews referring to a contemporary king as a messiah until the time of Bar Kochba.

Neil, if the Davidic messiah figure is the warrior king model to free the Jews from the Romans, then no such figure was successful at that job during Roman occupation. Any such attempts by starry-eyed messianic hopefuls could only end in disaster. The David and Goliath story had had it’s day. But the Davidic messiah model is not the only model that can be discerned from the OT. There is also the Joseph model. The man sold by his brothers who became second to Pharaoh in Egypt and was able to provide help to his family in troubled times. And that death-bed prophecy/prediction/blessing of Jacob – indicates that the time would come when the sceptre would depart from Judah – and that it was Joseph that would be the prince among his brothers. A non-Davidic messiah figure. A non-warrior type messiah figure. And does Josephus indicate what he, himself thought – that such a figure lived prior to 70 c.e.? I think he does.

Josephus has used the Joseph story with his account of Agrippa I.

Genesis 41: 41-46

So Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” Then pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck……Joseph was 30 years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Ant book 18 ch.6 (re Agrippa I)

“I think it fit to declare to thee the prediction of the gods. It cannot be that thou shouldst long continue in these bonds; but thou wilt soon be delivered from them, and wilt be promoted to the highest dignity and power, and thou wilt be envied by all……”

“However, there did not many days pass ere he sent for him to his house, and had him shaved, and made him change his raiment; after which he put a diadem upon his head, and appointed him to be king of the tetrarchy of Philip. He also gave him the tetrarchy of Lysanias, and changed his iron chain for a golden one of equal weight.”

Daniel 9: 25

..to restore and rebuild Jerusalem….

Ant book 19 ch.7 (re Agrippa I)

“As for the walls of Jerusalem, that were adjoining to the new city [Bezetha], he repaired them at the expense of the public, and built them wider in breadth, and higher in altitude; and he had made them too strong for all human power to demolish, “…….
Numbers 24:17

I behold him, but not near;
A star shall come forth from Jacob,
A sceptre shall rise from Israel,

Ant.book 19 ch.8 (re Agrippa I)

…”he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good,) that he was a god; and they added, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature”.
——————————————–
Yes, Josephus has told a very fanciful story re Agrippa I. Who was he? Well now, it is here that we hit a problem. Jewish tradition only has one King Agrippa – while Josephus gives us two!
——————————————-
Agrippa First: The Last King of Judaea: Daniel R Schwartz (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Pages 158 and 159

….Rabbinic literature speaks not infrequently of “King Agrippa” but does not specify father or son. Do all traditions refer to the same one? If so, which one? Or do some traditions refer to one and some to the other? If so, which should be assigned to whom? Or should we prefer to assume that the lack of rabbinic concern to identify the king indicates that the fact that there had once been two Kings Agrippa has been forgotten…..
The problem is quite a difficult one, and we have no unambiguous solution to offer.
—————————————

Who is Agrippa I? Josephus, the prophetic historian, says he was the grandson of the Hasmonean Mariamne and Herod the Great. But Josephus gives us two Agrippas – and Rabbinic literature only gives us one. So, if it’s history we are after – then this is one big puzzle that could do with being taken seriously.

Whatever are the answers re Agrippa I – Josephus has kept them close to his chest….Has Josephus been writing history here – or prophetic history, history with his own spin on it?

Neil, the issue is not about how many people, or how general was a messianic expectation prior to 70 c.e. What we have is the gospel storyline re a pseudo-historical figure, JC. A pseudo-historical figure that the gospel storyline is indicating has a messianic relevance for the story writers. That’s one reference. Josephus is the other re his use of the Joseph story in regard to Agrippa I. If it’s a Joseph type messiah figure that we should be looking for – rather than a Davidic type figure – then perhaps we should pay more attention to what we do have – the gospel story re JC and the Josephan story re Agrippa I. Josephus is showing no interest re the Jewish Davidic messianic pretenders – but that does not mean he has not displayed an interest in the Joseph type messiah model.

(and as for Vespasian – the Cyrus messianic/anointed model – well, Vespasian, by destroying the temple, did free the Jews to seek, and to build, a more spiritual, non-material, theology/temple…..)

Indeed, there are coins for Agrippa – but, seemingly, sometimes it’s not so easy assigning the coins to which specific Agrippa. I do think that the coins testify to two Agrippa’s though

The issue is more along the lines of why Josephus has two Agrippa’s and the Rabbinic literature seems to be content with just one! In other words, which Agrippa was the one of interest to Rabbinic literature. The later Agrippa, Agrippa II, was expelled from Jerusalem prior to the events of 70 c.e. – so perhaps it’s Agrippa II that they did not care for. It is Agrippa I that was the last king of Judea (as in the title of the book by Daniel Schwartz). Agrippa II never ruling Judea. It is Agrippa I that Josephus has applied the Joseph messianic model to – and it’s that use of the Joseph story that is of interest. Sure, Agrippa I, going by the Josephan ancestry, was part Hasmonean – but, methinks, that the Herodian bloodline that he also carried, would perhaps put him beyond the pale re any messianic models. Just a thought….actually, the whole Josephan storyline re Agrippa I is mind-blowing – it’s just so bizarre..I rather think that Josephus has used the Joseph messianic model – with it’s own strange intrigue – and applied it to Agrippa I. In other words; the whole prison story is just that a storyline for the messianic model. The historical Agrippa I most likely never set foot inside a prison – it’s all a Josephan messianic identifier being applied. Makes more sense to my thinking than having a Roman emperor take a prisoner (even one with royal blood) and make this prisoner a King (of Philip’s tetrarchy) – something that had not happened since Herod the Great. Well, I suppose Josephus has picked his Roman Emperor well – was not Caligula thought to be insane, mad…..

It was, according to Josephus, Claudius, who later made Agrippa I King of Judea. Josephus simply worked backwards to his Joseph storyline about the prisoner in Egypt (Rome for Agrippa) that was raised to be second only to Pharaoh. Thus, not a Davidic messianic king to overthrow the Romans – but a Joseph type messianic king who was second to the Roman Emperor Claudius – Agrippa the Great. For Josephus, a Davidic type messianic figure was out of the equation – Rome just too powerful. But a Joseph type messiah figure – that idea could be going places….

Wikipedia, on Agrippa I, quoting from the Jewish Encyclopedia.

“Claudius, showed himself grateful to Agrippa for important services rendered him, and upon his accession, placed under his rule the remainder of Palestine, the territories of Samaria, Judea, and Idumæa, formerly governed by Archelaus. Loaded with honors and titles, Agrippa returned home, and the few remaining years of his benevolent sway afforded the people a brief period of peace and prosperity. The evil consequences of a ruler’s unbridled passions and tyranny had been sufficiently evident to him in Rome, and they had taught him moderation and strict self-control. His people regarded him with love and devotion, because he healed with tender hand the deep wounds inflicted upon the national susceptibilities by brutal Roman governors. He ruled his subjects with compassion and friendliness. Like the ancestral Asmoneans from whom he sprang through his noble grandmother Mariamne, he honored the Law. Like the merest commoner, he carried his basket of first-fruits to the Temple; with the people he celebrated appropriately the Feast of Tabernacles, and he devoted to the sanctuary a golden chain with which Caligula had honored him. On one occasion, while in the street, he met a bridal procession which drew up to let him pass, but he halted and bade it take precedence. He sought to lighten taxation, remitting the impost on houses in Jerusalem. On the coins minted by him he carefully avoided placing any symbols which could offend the people’s religious sentiment. Thus, prosperity and comfort seemed to be dawning anew for the Jews.”

(interesting little footnote to all of this – Slavonic Josephus indicates that it was Tiberius that made Agrippa into King Agrippa – setting off Herod/Antipas going to Rome to argue for Kingship for himself….)

You are making do some homework, maryhelena. I hadn’t given either Agrippa much thought before. I looked at what can be seen of Daniel Schwartz’s book on Google books, and noticed this passage on page 2:

“Josephus frequently had more than one source regarding a given period or episode, illuminating it from different points of view, and his method of choice for dealing with the embarrassment of riches was to intermesh segments from each, rather than compose his own new narration on the basis of them all.”

I don’t know if this means that it was unlikely that Josephus created a narrative for Agrippa based on the Joseph model.

I also came across a Google book by Seth Schwartz called Josephus and Judean Politics, in which he lays out the references to Agrippa in rabbinic literature and makes a good case that it is Agrippa II.

Thanks for the reference to the book by Seth Schwartz – Josephus and Judean Politics. Google books can be a bit frustrating – I can’t seem able to find where Schwartz is indicating that the references in rabbinic literature are to Agrippa II – any chance you have a page number…….;-) – and not as Daniel Schwartz seems to indicate, ie the references are possibly a mix up between the two Agrippas – or that the rabbinic literature somehow forgot that there were two Agrippas…

If your interested in Hasmonean and Herodian history re the gospel time frame – have a look at a thread I put up on FRDB some time ago. Notice the second post – where Stephan Huller puts up a case for the rabbinic literature and only one Agrippa…..All in all it seems that this Agrippa question is rather a bit of a mystery – or at least of some intrigue! In the thread you will see how my thinking develops as the thread progresses….

While sleeping on this, I had the same concerns that I now see in your comment, and that perhaps I did not comprehend what I was reading in S. Schartz’s book. The relevant section is called “Agrippas Hamelekh in Rabbinic Literature” on pp. 160-169. There were two things in it that made me think the author leans towards Agrippa II. He says that while the rabbis do confuse the two Agrippas, we can’t “take it for granted, as many scholars have, that the … traditions refer to Agrippa I … It is therefore likely that the Rabbinic Agrippa is, in general, a … ”

And then, due to being incomplete on Google books, there is a page missing. For what it’s worth, I would now venture to guess he goes on to say that the Rabbinic Agrippa is a composite of the two.

The other thing was an interesting table on p. 166 comparing a passage in Josephus with ones in Rabbinic literature concerning the time of Agrippa II, and that’s what made me think the author leaned towards the Rabbinic Agrippa being Agrippa II, besides other little things. But it may be that the gist is only that the rabbis were confused about which Agrippa they remembered.

Thanks Mary. On reading through the references you provided here I see a possible illustration of another topic I have been discussing (“attempting to discuss”) elsewhere. At least one midrashic scholar has said that the writings of Josephus contain midrash, too, and it could be that we have Josephus here using Scriptures about Joseph to interpret the life of Agrippa in that manner.

It is interesting — we do know, as you have pointed out — that there was a concept of two-messiahs, the priestly and the royal, also (I think) another dualism of the Ephraimite and the Judahite. I had relegated the latter to left-field (non mainstream Judaism) but how can one tell what overlaps there may have been given the few records we have from this period.

That’s the way to go Neil – you hit the nail on the head here. Midrashic as a Jewish take on the OT – and we must not leave Josephus or the gospel writers out of this method. With the gospels and Josephus we are often not dealing with a chronological line but with bits and pieces of history, and historical interpretations, mixed into the brew. (as in gLuke 3.1 and his 70 years going all the way back to 40 b.c. and Lysanias of Abilene – thus a condensed, abbreviated, interpretation, midrash, of historical events that were viewed as significant by the gospel writers.)

And that massacre of the innocents – 37 b.c. and Herod the Great’s siege of Jerusalem. Bethlehem? It’s not only the birth place of David – it’s also the burial place of Rachel – mother of Joseph. So, looks like the gospel JC story has ‘played’ with the two messiah concepts. The man of war (the bound to a cross, crucified, flogged and beheaded Antigonus in 37 b.c) and the man of peace (Philip the Tetrarch – who I think became Agrippa I – new name as did, for example, the Roman Emperor Augustus – from Octavian)

I’m not suggesting that Josephus avoided saying “messiah” to not offend imperial sensibilities, only that the term as Jews like the DSS group understood it may not have been considered as understandable to Romans as “king” or “governor of the habitable earth.” It can be inferred from the latter citation that Josephus is referring to “messianic” oracles, and it’s not a stretch to see “messianic” implications in the other cases as well, especially when we know that there were such expectations in the DSS and other apocalyptic literature during this era. But I will concede that this is only a guess.

Maybe Josephus made an exception for Jesus, if he did exist and was known to have been “called Christ.” I don’t know. But he arguably tried to avoid offending imperial sensitivities by portraying all people “like” this in a negative light.

My memory is rusty, but didn’t Bar Kochba refer to himself as “the president” (ha-nasi) and not “the messiah” on his coins and in his letters? I recall that the word “messiah” only occurs twice in the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), and does not refer to anyone in particular, but rather the concept of the messiah (I will have to check, it’s been a long time). If such references are first seen in the Gemara, then as far as I can remember there is no contemporary evidence that even Bar Kochba was called a “messiah.” But literature like the Dead Sea Scrolls (and by inference Josephus) indicate that there was “messianic” expectation before 70 CE.

Even the DSS do not always use the term “messiah,” and sometimes say “branch of David” or, just like for Bar Kochba, “nasi.” But they are obviously references to “the messiah.”

These different terms for “messiah” make it understandable that Josephus would say “king” or “governor” when addressing a Roman audience, unless someone was specifically “called Christ,” as Jesus may have been.

Maryhelena has addressed the Joseph-messiah-christology — I have just been reminded of a post I did three years ago presenting a Jewish scholar’s take on just that, and how and why it came to be merged with an Isaac crhistology:

Agrippa was almost universally regarded to be the Jewish messiah. The tradition is referenced by countless rabbinic and European sources (Luther, Calvin etc). I attempted to pull all these sources together a while back. The bottom line is that Agrippa was seen by the Protestant sources as the Jewish rival claimant to Jesus. The Jews identify Agrippa as the messiah of Daniel 9:26. He is obviously the world ruler of Genesis 49:10 (the last in the royal line). Origen identifies him as such from manuscripts of a Jewish historian at his disposal (Justus?). Origen also comes across Jews in Caesarea who make a case for Judah ha Nasi as the continuation of the divine line (which Origen rejects).

The bottom line is that a stronger case can be made for Agrippa by the fact that he actually resembled the figure predicted by the Jewish writings. Jesus certainly did not and various traditions (the Marcionites) made this explicit.

Stephan, oh Stephan – methinks you need to identify which Agrippa you are referring to! Yes, I know you uphold the idea that there was only one historical Agrippa – but in the context of the above blog post it would be a good idea to make this clear….

Agrippa II never did rule Judea – so assigning this historical figure as the Jewish Messiah leaves much to be desired. On the other hand Agrippa I did rule Judea – according to Josephus. As to the historical existence of Agrippa I – we do have the Herodian coins.

For anyone interested – here is a link to a FRDB thread where Stephan and I had a discussion related to Josephus and Agrippa. Yes, Josephus could be telling tall tales over many things – but, Stephan, it’s going to take more than argument to get historians to give up on Agrippa I.

Agrippa First: The Last King of Judaea: Daniel R Schwartz. (Amazon, no preview. Google books preview is available)

Pages 158 and 159

Many problems beset those who would use rabbinic literature for historical purposes in general, and regarding Agrippa in particular.

..no one should expect to find in rabbinic literature what we find in Josephus and Philo: Jewish perspectives on Agrippa more or less contemporary with him….

….Rabbinic literature speaks not infrequently of “King Agrippa” but does not specify father or son. Do all traditions refer to the same one? If so, which one? Or do some traditions refer to one and some to the other? If so, which should be assigned to whom? Or should we prefer to assume that the lack of rabbinic concern to identify the king indicates that the fact that there had once been two Kings Agrippa has been forgotten…..

The problem is quite a difficult one, and we have no unambiguous solution to offer.

Neil Godfrey and Tim Widowfield, who both write at Vridar . . . happen to be some of the most astute and well-read amateurs you can read on the internet on the subject of biblical historicity. I call them amateurs only for the reason that they don’t have, so far as I know, advanced degrees in the subject. But I have often been impressed with their grasp of logic and analysis of scholarship. I don’t always agree with them, but I respect their work.